ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C

  • To: "'Milton Mueller'" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>, "'Paul Stahura'" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>, "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
  • From: "Christopher Gibson" <cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 20:17:14 -0400


I understand from your views below that you are concerned about potential
abuse in connection with the commercial vs. non-commercial distinction
within the OPOC system and would, in fact, like to expand protection to
extend beyond existing norms for data protection and privacy.  My view,
however, is that sub-group C should not set out to go beyond norms as they
currently exist within the EU, the US, the Asia-Pacific and most of the rest
of the world.  Such work should be left to legislative bodies or
norm-setting bodies.  

With respect to your comments concerning the registrars, adding an
additional distinction such as commercial vs. non-commercial may add to
their burden, or make their business models in respect of providing OPOC
services more complicated.  Thus, I am not surprised that they would choose
to voice opposition.  While their position should certainly be taken into
account, it should not be determinative in developing a proper approach and
policy in relation to OPOC's scope and registrations.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:34 PM
To: Paul Stahura; Tim Ruiz
Cc: gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx; Maria Farrell; Lynn (IHG) Goodendorf; Chris
Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C

Speaking as the chair of the noncommercial users constituency, I believe
NCUC can accept the report's language regarding a legal/natural persons
distinction, and possibly an OPoC implementation based on that policy. We
reject however the second paragraph about "verification"  and believe it
should be deleted, as both redundant and lacking in support.

Noncommercial internet users are however, strongly opposed to making a
commercial/noncommercial distinction. We are very aware of the way overly
broad characterization of "commercial use" has been exploited by litigants
to suppress freedom of expression on the internet, and we are aware of the
vague, changing and "dynamic" nature of the distinction, seeing as how it is
sometimes applied to T-shirt sales or requests for donations by
noncommercial groups, or even mere links to commercial or quasi-commercial
web sites.

While it is obvious that false self-certifications should be exposed and
changed, we have concerns about a formal "challenge procedure" of the sort
our IPR lawyers seem to have in mind as becoming excessively bureaucratic
and expensive. Can and will propose alternate language in a subsequent

>>> Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 5/30/2007 11:03 AM >>>
Nor do I. The last thing we need are more policies that ICANN not only
doesn't enforce, but actually can't. And I question the statement that some
registrars are verifying such a distinction. If so, I would think there
should be some examples - the specific registrars who are doing it and how
they are doing it.
Also, I think the changes that Lynn and Chris are suggesting do not
accurately represent the level of support and/or agreement of the group.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
From: "Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 30, 2007 9:58 am
To: "Goodendorf,  Lynn (IHG)" <Lynn.Goodendorf@xxxxxxx>,  "Chris
Gibson" <cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx>,  "Maria Farrell"
<maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>,  <gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx>

 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage v\:*   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage o\:*   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage w\:*   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage .shape   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage /* Font Definitions */ @font-face
{font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} #wmMessageComp
#wmMessage /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage
li.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage div.MsoNormal   {margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage a:link, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage
span.MsoHyperlink   {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} #wmMessageComp
#wmMessage a:visited, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} #wmMessageComp #wmMessage
span.EmailStyle17   {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:Arial;
color:navy;} #wmMessageComp #wmMessage spa!
 n.EmailStyle18   {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:Arial; color:navy;}
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:Arial; color:navy;}
#wmMessageComp #wmMessage @page Section1   {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in
1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} #wmMessageComp #wmMessage div.Section1
{page:Section1;}I do not believe a distinction should be made.

From: Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG) [mailto:Lynn.Goodendorf@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:31 AM
To: Chris Gibson; Maria Farrell; gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx 
Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C

I would just like to add a comment that I feel these revisions help achieve
the balance needed to win a broad consensus of support.

Some members have not been as vocal in our discussions and I do not have a
sense of whether the majority of the group is in agreement.
Since we did not have a teleconference today, is it possible to have some
kind of quick informal poll?

-Lynn Goodendorf

From: Chris Gibson [mailto:cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:12 AM
To: 'Chris Gibson'; 'Maria Farrell'; gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx 
Cc: Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)
Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group CSorry for the
duplication * this message has the document attached.


From: owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Chris Gibson
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:04 AM
To: 'Maria Farrell'; gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx 
Cc: 'Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)'
Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C

Dear All,

I have attached the draft final report for sub-group C with some revisions
marked in red-line, which Lynn Goodendorf and I propose.  We believe these
suggested changes are helpful to improve some of the writing, accuracy and
balance of the report.


Chris Gibson


From: owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Maria Farrell
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:12 PM
To: gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx 
Subject: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C

Dear all,

Attached is the Final Report of Sub Group C, prepared by its chair, Jon

We agreed on this week's call to discuss any further - hopefully minor -
changes to the report using this mailing list rather than on a conference

So please review this draft and circulate any comments on it to this list.
Please do use 'track changes' mode if you suggest changes to the document. 

We should expect to finalise this report next week and submit it to the
Working Group. I will also be adding some basic information to it about
membership of the group and attendance.  

All the best, Maria

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy